Zondo has nothing on me, says Zuma

FORMER president Jacob Zuma has labelled the State Capture Inquiry report “a classical case of the fruits of a poisoned tree” for implicating him in corruption and kleptomania committed during his term of office with alleged sidekicks the Gupta brothers.

Zuma said the commission, which was established in August 2018 and has cost the state almost R1 billion, was unlawful and predictably full of gossip, innuendo and conjecture.

He said it fell short of concrete evidence; therefore, he would be challenging all findings of the report that relate to him, and his legal team would be reporting Chief Justice Raymond Zondo to the Judicial Service Commission within the next week or two.

Justice Zondo handed over the final instalment of the State Capture Inquiry report to President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday. The final report was in two parts and covered among other things the SABC, Parliament, the Vrede Dairy Project, the State Security Agency, the ANC, and the unlawful landing of the Gupta family at Waterkloof Air Force Base.

Zuma was scheduled to appear before the media, but due to his medical parole conditions – which forbid him to be in a gathering outside his residence – he was instead represented by his daughter, Duduzile, the Jacob G Zuma Foundation, as well as his legal team, led by advocate Dali Mpofu.

Mzwanele Manyi, the foundation’s spokesperson, accused Justice Zondo of being biased and said the report, which painted Zuma as the enabler and supporter of corruption and state capture, was irrational and unlawful.

He said there was no tangible evidence linking Zuma to corruption and they wanted the Judicial Service Commission to investigate Judge Zondo. He said Zuma would also be taking the findings that relate to him on review.

“To say Chief Justice Zondo is unworthy of being called a judge would be a serious understatement. Chief Justice Zondo fails the most basic of the tests even for the most junior judge,” said Manyi. “No self-respecting judge worthy of that title sits on a case where he or she is directly affected and demonstrably conflicted in order to settle personal scores.”

Criticising Judge Zondo’s conduct, Manyi said the judge refused to recuse himself to allow a neutral individual to receive Zuma’s submissions. He blamed the media and judiciary for perpetuating a false narrative of Zuma refusing to appear before the commission when he was in fact fighting to have an unbiased decision-maker.

Manyi said the judiciary would also be asked to investigate the grossly unlawful comments, unwarranted insults and political meddling by Justice Zondo.

“Given all his transgressions and displays of incompetence, the foundation has also separately instructed its own lawyers to look into the possibility of challenging the unlawful appointment of Justice Zondo as the Chief Justice of South Africa, in spite of his dismal performance at the JSC interviews as observed by millions of South Africans on national television,” he said. “An announcement in this regard will be made in due course.”

Political analyst Dr Imraan Buccus said the Jacob Zuma Foundation was clutching at straws, and that the stance taken by Manyi, when in fact the commission was established by the former president, was surprising. He said there was ample evidence to indicate that Zuma and his allies had been corrupt.

“The commission was comprehensive and it went to great lengths to reduce the report that it had. For many South Africans, the commission was a pivotal moment in our history and South Africans were looking to the outcomes that lead to prosecution, putting behind a dark period in our history,” said Buccus.

“What has come out of the commission is very important because corruption in a developed society remains the greatest threat to development, social cohesion and national security.”

AFTER more than four years since the Zondo Commission began its work, this long and tedious journey has finally come to an end.

With the benefit of hindsight, we are now in a better position to cast our eyes backwards and ask a couple of questions.

Was it justifiable to spend almost R1billion to sustain this commission? Did the commission have to take this long to conclude its work? To what extent were the witnesses truthful when presenting their evidence? Will the nation find all the answers it hoped for from this commission? To what extent was the Zondo Commission different from previous commissions?

These are some of the critical questions that need to be ventilated in trying to unpack the lessons learnt from the Zondo Commission. To appreciate its significance (or lack thereof), it is of cardinal importance to juxtapose it with previous commissions.

Among them is the Arms Deal Commission, which was led by Judge Willie Seriti and Judge Hendrick Musi. Despite the hard work that went into this commission and the large sums spent to sustain it, the nation did not get conclusive answers to critical questions regarding this saga.

This was bound to happen. Some of the key witnesses, such as Joe Modise who was the minister of Defence, had already passed on.

Thabo Mbeki, who had served as deputy president under president Nelson Mandela and was president when the incident happened, was not afforded enough time to present his side of the story. Instead, people who were not in the national government were placed on the centre stage. Among them was Jacob Zuma, who was MEC for Economic Development in Kwazulu-natal.

Another example is the Moerane Commission into political killings in Kwazulu-natal, which was led by advocate Marumo Moerane. Premier Willies Mchunu appointed this commission following the spate of unexplained political killings in the province. Large sums of money were allocated to the commission to enable it to conduct its investigations.

The 423-page report gave some pointers as to why politicians were being butchered, but failed to provide conclusive answers. Part of the reason was that potential critical witnesses did not come forward to give evidence because they feared for their lives.

Questions were asked as to whether the money that was spent on the commission was justifiable. Those who asked this question were vindicated as more politicians were killed after Moerane had submitted his report.

This synopsis is necessary in providing the broader context within which the Zondo Commission should be assessed. It will make people desist from making the insinuation that those who are critical of the commission and its findings have a vendetta against Justice Raymond Zondo. Actually, failure to subject the Zondo Commission to scrutiny would be a dereliction of duty by analysts, the intelligentsia and other critics from different sectors of society. Constructive criticism is always useful. It assists in improving future endeavours.

The Zondo Commission was established under questionable circumstances. Advocate Thuli Madonsela recommended its establishment but insisted that the chairperson should not be appointed by then president Jacob Zuma but by the Chief Justice. This marked a deviation from Section 84(f) of the Constitution, which states that the president is responsible for “appointing commissions of inquiry”.

Madonsela’s argument was that Zuma was implicated in the allegation of the capture of the state by the Gupta family and thus could not appoint the chairperson of the commission.

Indeed, Justice Zondo was not appointed by Zuma. Even Madonsela’s report was not submitted to Zuma as the sitting president but was handed to the Speaker of the National Assembly.

While the commission was sitting, many things went wrong. Some witnesses were not truthful – one saying that she had met the Guptas abroad when actually they were in the country at that time. Other witnesses who had painted Zuma in a bad light suddenly told Justice Zondo that things were not that bad under Zuma’s administration.

The commission also made mistakes. For example, when Zuma appeared before it, he received a hostile reception (in contrast to what happened with President Cyril Ramaphosa). This resulted in him not returning to the commission.

Justice Zondo was infuriated. He addressed the media, arguing he found it unacceptable the same Zuma who had appointed the commission was frustrating it.

Justice Zondo did not remind the nation the commission was not Zuma’s decision but that of the court which compelled him to appoint it. He also failed to remind the nation he had not been appointed by Zuma. Importantly, Justice Zondo did not present the context within which Zuma had refused to return to the commission.

Instead, Justice Zondo approached his colleagues in the Constitutional Court to lay charges against Zuma. Even more intriguingly, he recommended a sentence of two years if Zuma were to be found guilty.

For people with no legal background, this was a very strange practice. After trying Zuma in absentia, Judge Sisi Khampepe read a strongly worded judgment which sent him to jail for 15 months. This resulted in unrest and the loss of many lives, jobs and the destruction of national infrastructure.

Apart from the many extensions and requests for additional funding, the last part of the report was clouded by controversy. There were many postponements.

Even on the day of the final handover, the event was delayed by close to three hours. Ordinarily, this would not have been an issue. What raised eyebrows was that the handover was preceded by the bombshell dropped by Arthur Fraser about the 2020 Phala Phala incident which involved the president.

There was much speculation about the possible causes of these delays. Such speculation affected the integrity of the final report.

In a nutshell, while the Zondo Commission report will assist the nation in getting a sense of what happened, it has evoked many questions.

There are lessons to be learnt from this exercise going forward.

Justice Zondo did not remind the nation that the commission was not Zuma’s decision but that of the court which compelled him to appoint it. He did not present the context within which Zuma had refused to return to the commission.

Bheki Mngomezulu